[lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261

>> Anyone that wants to have a glimpse of what the IETF is going to do  
>> for
>> them is encouraged to read Kurtis' own draft:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kurtis-multihoming- 
>> longprefix-
>> 00.txt
>> Which basically says that we should allow /48 prefixes punched from PA
>> space in the Global Routing Table. I am sure the educated reader that
>
> I don't think this is a workable solution. Because:
> * it doesn't actually solve the problem - in fact it gets worse as you
>

Absolutely!

>  de-aggregate PA space and force it throughout the Internet. I don't
>  see the advantage of announcing PA /48s under other providers as  
> oposed to
>  giving people PI space, I see however problems in a future where /48s
>  starts getting filtered and multihoming is silently broken.

That is one possible scenario. The draft is written from the outset  
that I am currently more worried that we will never reach 1k routes of  
IPv6, and that this is a sign of no wider adoption. Trends from Gerts  
data are showing some improvement, but there is still quite a bit to go.

> * it depends on what ASs 2 hops away from me do. If somewhere along the
>  way someone summarizes my "main" provider's routes sudenly the chunk  
> of
>  Internet behind him will start using the more specific. Don't forget  
> we're
>  talking about selling service here and with this scenario I can't  
> garantee
>  my clients the connectivity I'm selling them will actually be used.

Agreed.

> * it makes it particularly hard to change providers quickly. By all
>  means this is lock-in to the primary provider.

Agreed.

> Summing, I think this despite masking the problem in the short run
> it has enough problems of its own to not be adopted commercially.

Yes. But it's approach. Seriously I think that what will help us get  
out of the current dead-lock is a agreed path to a final solution. As I  
recently said on the multi6 list, I used to believe in a phased  
approach, but I have shifted and come to realize that the only thing  
that will work in the end is that we from the start work on the  
permanent solution. Otherwise we will keep adding patches forever.

>
> The document claims,
> "The third advantage of this model is that this mirrors existing
>  operating practices in the IPv4 world.",
> not quite - if I allocate a /24 to a costumer they will not announce  
> it to
> another provider. If they do, the other provider will most likely  
> filter
> it based on whois/registrar database entries. This could probably be
> solved for the proposed scenario but it seems like a kludge.

This is not true. This is done quite regularly.

- kurtis -
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/lir-wg/attachments/20030529/e97f9547/attachment.sig>